Welcome to zero i'm Akshatrati. Over the weekend, we heard the devastating news that salimul Huk had passed away. Salim was a leading climate scientist. He was the director of the International Center for Climate Change and Development, a lead author of the third, fourth and fifth Assessment reports of the Intercovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a professor at the Independent University in Bangladesh. He was so much more
than those titles. Salim attended every single COP conference. He was one of the most prominent voices championing the cause of developing countries, demanding that the global North give the resources needed to the global South to adapt to and recover from climate impacts. He had a knack for being able to communicate the challenges to all audiences in a way that was clear, incisive, and optimistic. He will be
missed by many. We spoke to Salim on the podcast last year in Egypt at Koptoona, where he gave me one of the best explanations of the idea of loss and damage. That issue will be central again at COP twenty eight in the UE later this month. We were looking forward to catching up with Salim to hear about the progress that's been made and the many things still
need to be resolved. So for today's episode, we are going to replay the conversation we had with Salim last year, because much of what we talked about and that he so passionately believed in, is still as true today as it was then. If anything, the stakes are even higher. After the interview, I'll give a quick update on where things stand on Lost in Damage as we go into COP twenty eight. We'll also hear from several of Salim's colleagues who wanted to pay tribute to his life and legacy.
There has been an outpouring of emotion at the shocking news of his passing. Here's Salim Mulhak in conversation last November at COP twenty seven in Shermilhak, Egypt. You've been at every COP meeting since the first one in nineteen ninety five. In fact, you were at the Rio Earth Summit in nineteen ninety two where the unf Triple C, which is the convention under which the COP meetings were created, happened. Do you think COP meetings over the last twenty seven versions have made any progress.
They've certainly made progress, So what we are dealing with is a planetary scale problem without a planetary government. We have two hundred governments around the world on planet Earth. Something that is a global problem like climate change, requires every country to come together, and the only way that can be done is under the United Nations. And the good news is that thirty years ago we came together and we agreed. We have a treaty. Every single country
agreed to take actions to tackle climate change. And then every year we come together at these Conferences of Parties to take stock of where we are in terms of fulfilling the agreements that we made. Unfortunately, we're not doing enough. We're not doing everything we said we would do, and so these meetings are opportunities to see how we can accelerate action, how we can do better, how we can do more, how we can go faster.
As many as forty five thousand people are registered to come to the COP meeting here in charmil Shake. How have COP meetings changed That forty five thousand figure is a large number, But from the time that you've been coming to COP meetings, what has been the visible change for you?
The original Conferences of Parties were meant for government officials to come together and review progress and agree on new actions that they would take together. It was involving a few thousand government officials and they'd meet most of the time behind closed doors and negotiate over very arcane language which is unintelligible to the rest of the people. But then over time many more people started coming. I myself
am not a negotiator. I come as an observer, and there are many such observers, and we do lots and lots of side events and activities. There are networks of young people, networks of scientists, networks of farmers and indigenous people, and women's groups, and many many more who come to the cop TO network. And so what you find nowadays is that in addition to the core negotiators, there are
a periphery of many other coalitions of the willing. And that really is what you should keep your eyes on, because as of the last few years from the Paris Agreement. The key about the Paris Agreement is that we needed governments to come together to agree it. But we don't have to rely on governments alone to do everything all together. A few governments, together with other actors, companies, CEOs, mayors of cities, can get together and decide to do something,
and we have many such coalitions. Every day they'll be making announcements on what they are doing. And to me, that's really the message from Charmilshake is the doers, the actors, telling you what they are doing, telling all of us what they're doing, and hopefully we can stimulate them to do more, and then the negotiators have to come to
a decision on what everybody can agree to. One of the design flaws in the process is that a decision in the cop requires consensus, and so we can only get consensus around the lowest common denominator to take a little bit of action, not the kind of action that we really need from everybody.
These global negotiations require two hundred governments to come to a consensus. How is the climate change negotiation doing relative to other types of negotiations under the United Nations? Is there more progress or less progress on climate change?
Well?
I think the UN Framework Convention is a very good example of all countries coming together and agreeing to things. It's a bad example of them actually doing what they promise to do. So they make promises and then they fail to keep those promises, sometimes for legitimate reasons, sometimes less legitimate reasons, but there are other FORUA as well. There is the United Nations General Assembly, where all countries come together. In the General Assembly, Unlike the UN Framework Convention,
decisions can be made by a majority of countries. In the UN Framework Convention, it has to be unanimous, it has to be by consensus, so we always end up by having the lowest common denominator as decisions and progress is always slower.
In the General Assembly, they also have the Security Council, which can vote down or veto a decision even if the majority of countries have made them absolutely so.
One of the reasons why the Conference of Parties is particularly important for the more poorer, vulnerable countries is that it's the only forum in which they have a seat at the table. Security Council include them. The G seven does not include them, the G twenty does not include them. They're not even invited as observers. The UNFCC COP once a year is the only place where they can sit around the table with all the big guys and actually say something. They may not listen, but at least we
get to say it. Sometimes we actually get to persuade them to do something.
Now one moment where that persuasion worked was at the Paris Agreement, where before countries were agreeing to a two degrees celsius warming goal, but because of persistent and motivated individuals, especially from island nations, it was possible to add the one point five degree celsius goal to the Paris Agreement. Seven years on, there is conversations that one point five degrees celsius might be impossible. Do you think so?
Well? The one point five degree goal was I would say the pinnacle of achievement of the vulnerable countries, including the island countries and the least developed countries, to persuade both the rich countries and even the big developing countries like China and India to agree to a one point five degree goal. Over the two weeks we were in Paris, we managed to persuade every single country to agree to adopt one point five as a target. That was a
great achievement. We hope that would drive action. It did drive some action, but not enough, and every single day now we are slipping away from being able to stay below one point five. But even if we don't manage one point five, every fraction of a degree counts so it's not as if two is another magic figure. One point five one is a magic figure, one point five to two is a magic figure, one point five to
three is a magic figure. Every incremental amount of temperatureize means lots and lots of people dying, losing their livelihoods, and being forced to migrate. So the impacts of climate change are now real. They're happening. They will happen at bigger and bigger scales, and in the near term. We can still prevent the huge scales in the long term, but the near term mid level scales are inevitable and going to happen.
One thing that happened after one point five degrees celsius was agreed upon as a goal is that a series of big reports came out trying to explain to the world what a one point five degrees celsius warming would look like, because nobody had figured out what that would look like. And then they said, what needs to be done to reach one point five degrees celsius And that's where net zero by twenty fifty the target comes through.
Where reducing carbon dioxide emissions to net zero by twenty fifty would allow the world to keep warming below one point five degrees celsius. That target has then been taken, as you explained, by subgovernment actors. So it's not just national governments, it's also regional governments, it's also corporations, and that certainly has galvanized people to come up with plans to reach those goals. If one point five degrees celsius is dead, should net zero by twenty fifty be dead too.
I won't call it dead, I'll call it on life support. And as I said, every incremental change matters, right, So it's not as if we're going to fall off a cliff. At one point five we will still be around, a lot of people will suffer, but then we can still manage to stop it at one point five to one and then one point five two. All right, So we will keep on fighting to keep the temperature rising below two degrees.
And at least the companies and the governments that have committed to net zero by twenty fifty, if they meet those goals, then they would have done the morally right thing toward one point five degrees sources, even if the global goal is.
Not meant absolutely so, one of the outcomes of the Paris Agreement is that while we needed the nearly two hundred countries that are in the UN Framework Convention to agree to the agreement, we don't need all of them to implement it. Implementation can be done by anybody you and I can decide to implement a part of the Paris Agreement. Kids around the world are implementing parts of the Paris Agreement. Companies around the world are doing it.
So implementation can be done by what we call coalitions of the willing who want to take action. And net zero by twenty fifty is such a coalition that the race to zero that's taking place. We need to make it go faster. We need more people to join it, but it's certainly moving in the right direction.
One other way to think about progress is that when the Paris Agreement happened, the world had the possibility of getting as much as five degrees celsius of warming. If we think two degrees celsius is catastrophic, five degrees celsius is mayhem. Now, despite not enough action, the worst case outcome being talked about is three degrees celsius, which is still pretty bad. But what does that progress feel like where you have avoided the worst of the worst possibilities.
Well, I would put that to the achievement of the UN Framework Convention. Without it, we would be still heading for five degrees. A business is usual from this time we started thirty years ago would take us on a five degree pathway. A UNFCC treaty followed by the Paris Agreement moved us theoretically towards a one point five degree in less than two degrees. We are heading above two degrees, maybe in the two point five to three degree range
business as usual today. But if we can ratchet that down or ratchet up the actions to reduce emissions, we can certainly stay below two degrees. One point five may not be reachable anymore politically, but two degrees is certainly reachable. And I'll give you one major advance that is outside the UNFCC, but it is relevant, and that is the global economy moving away from fossils. It's happening at speed now. The renewable energy world is faster, more efficient, cheaper, and
it's just going to blow out all the fossil fuel investments. Already, coal is non viable. Nobody can invest in coal and make money. Petroleum will follow, and natural gas will follow that and that will be the big transition.
One of the biggest topics that's going to be talked about here where government action is going to be crucial because there has been none so far, is this subject of loss and damage. What does loss and damage mean?
Loss in damage is now a new phenomenon that is taking place which adds to previous actions that we needed to take for mitigation that is reducing emissions and then adaptation, which is preparing for the impacts of climate change, both of which are being done assuming that we can prevent climate change. Unfortunately we've failed. Climate change is now happening.
As of this year. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who assess the science, have given unequivocal evidence that they can detect climate change impacts and losses in damages due to those impacts happening as we speak. A good example is the floods in Pakistan that took place just recently. Fifty percent of that has been attributed to have been caused because of human induced climate change.
And under the Paris Agreement, governments have agreed to do something about loss and damage, not specifically what, but since that agreement in twenty fifteen, nothing has happened.
On loss in damage right, not that nothing has happened. Some things have happened. There are three ways in which loss and damage we have agreed to address. The first is what we call avert it, which is prevented from happening, and that maps onto mitigation reduce emissions so we won't have impacts of higher temperatures. The second one is minimize, which maps on to adaptation. If you adapt, you minimize. The third one is address, and that we have not done.
We have done work on averting and minimizing, but we now have to address and address boils down to money. The people who are suffering the impacts need to be given some sort of funding to recover from those impacts, and that's what we are demanding here.
And so over the next two weeks, what do you think would be your best outcome on loss and damage?
So the best outcome we hope we will achieve is negotiate an agreement to set up what we are calling the finance facility for loss and damage. It does not have to be detailed out in any detail, but we do need to agree to set it up. Then we can take another year come back. In COP twenty eight
in ABU Dhabi and work out the details. And there are very valid questions to be associated with it, namely, where would money come from, how much money is needed, who would handle the money, who would get the money, All legitimate questions which would need a fair degree of research and options to be put together, and those we can then come back in Cop twenty eight and work out the details and negotiate something that makes sense for everybody.
Now, the first two steps were averting and minimizing and towards that there was going to be one hundred billion dollars being given broadly called climate finance. That one hundred billion dollars has never happened annually that figure. They're getting close to one hundred billion dollars, but they've never reached it. This is rich countries having to give that money to
poor countries. If they can't give one hundred billion dollars, which they agreed upon many many years ago, why do you think they'll be able to agree upon even more
money to be given for addressing loss and damage. Well, we are hopeful that they will do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, and not be miserly because they feel that they don't have enough money to spare, and so we are appealing to them out of a sense of responsibility, to take that responsibility and accept that responsibility and then talk to us about how they can fulfill that responsibility. At the moment they're refusing to take responsibility, that's not acceptable.
Now.
Moral outrage does work sometimes, but often at the scale at which we are talking, where it's two hundred countries, where there's hundreds of billions of dollars worth of money to be talked about, will moral outrage be enough?
It certainly isn't enough. Now there's no moral responsibility taken by the rich countries at all. So that's the first step. Money comes a long way after that responsibility you have to start with, and they have to take it. And I'll give you an example last year in Glasgow inside the UNFCC in COP twenty six, not a single country inside the COP offered any money. Mister Biden came and offered zero dollars. Ungla Marcel came and offered zero euros.
Boris Johnson, the host, offered zero pounds. But outside the COP, in the city of Glasgow, in the country of Scotland, which has its own government, its own parliament, its own first minister, missus Nicola's surgeon. She actually put two million pounds on the table for loss and damage. She's not a party to the UNFZZ, but she is a government.
She took responsibility. She said Scotland benefited from the industrial revolution, became rich because of it, but it also recognizes that there are ancillary impacts that were unintended that happened because of the emissions of their greenhouse gases. They take responsibility and they offered two million not a huge amount of money, but more than every other leader offered to provide to the victims of climate change. They accepted moral responsibility and
they invited other governments to do that. Now, the only other government while we were in Scotland that rose to the occasion was the Province of Wallonia in Belgium. They offered a million euros. Since then, one of the parties to the UN Framework Convention, Denmark, has actually broken ranks with the European Union and offered one hundred million kroner. So that's what we want more countries to come forward and take responsibility.
Let's come back to loss in damage. Now, you said something that's very important. Pakistan had about thirty billion dollars of damage caused by the flooding that happened over the summer. How much of that should rich countries be paying for? And how is that calculator?
So the calculations are done by a branch of the climate scientists called attribution scientists. It used to take them a long time to make these calculations, and they'd come back a year later saying how much additional damage was
attributable to human indiance lamage. They're getting much better now and they can now produce their calculations within a matter of days of fast moving events like floods and cyclones, and they have attributed half the damage in Pakistan to the fact that global temperature is already raised over one degree centigrade attributable to human induce climate change. So the point we're making is that what used to be one hundred percent natural events are no longer one hundred percent
natural events. They are being exacerbated, not caused, but exacerbated by the fact that global temperature has gone up by over one degree attributable to human emissions. And therefore there is a responsibility of the polluters who emitted those Greno's gases to offer some support to the victims of their pollution. So pollution does not have it's not victimless. There are victims, and they exist, They're happening today, so there's a responsibility to help them.
At the end of COP twenty seven, Salim's desire was finally fulfilled. All parties agreed to create a fund that would aid poor countries harmed by climate impacts. It had been a decades long fight, but getting that agreement is only the start. Now it has to be put into practice at COP twenty eight in Dubai later this month.
One of the goals is to operationalize the fund. That's just cop Jarwin from making it work, which is to say, find a place that will host the fund, agree on who will add money to the pot, and set guidance on how the money will be given out. These are not trivial questions. With less than a month to go, there are still big contentious issues. I'll summarize two of them here briefly, but please do follow our coverage on
bloomberg dot com slash green for the latest. The first issue is who will host the fund, Basically, who is in charge of its day to day workings. The usays it should be hosted by the World Bank because creating a new legal entity could take a long time. But developing countries think that the World Bank isn't fit for purpose. They say it's controlled by rich countries and is only effective at giving out loans, not grants. Grants are what are needed for Loss and Damage money to be actually useful.
There is also the problem that countries like Cuba, which are sanctioned by the US, may not be able to use the fund if it is hosted by the World Bank. The second issue centers around money. Rich countries have consistently failed to meet promises on climate finance. In two thousand and nine, they committed to providing one hundred billion dollars each year by twenty twenty to help poor countries build
projects that cut emissions and adapt to warming. They miss the deadline in twenty twenty and may not meet it even this year. So far, only a small handful of rich countries have committed small amounts of money to the Loss and Damage Fund. Poor countries are worried that asking for more money for a new fund will end in failure.
That's why they are calling for creative approaches such as putting a small tax on fossil fuel profits or financial transactions or insurance premium, but those ideas are also facing resistance. COP meetings always feature fights between rich and poor countries. As climate impacts get worse, those fights are getting more serious. But because there needs to be a consensus among all countries for a decision to be made at COP, it
allows developing countries to have their say. Salim played an instrumental role in bringing unity among developing countries on the issue of loss and damage. His voice will be greatly missed by all those championing the cause. While working on this episode, we heard from many of Salim's colleagues who wanted to say a few words about his life, legacy, and the huge hole he leaves behind in climate diplomacy. From Farana Sultana, professor of geography at Syracuse University, we
heard about his unwavering optimism. Faranah was working with Salem on an op ed in The Guardian just before his death. We've linked it in the show.
Notes that was one of the most amazing things.
He had enormous, relentless.
Capacity for optimism, and he also kept saying that you know, never give up your seat use it responsibly. And what kept him going, I think is that he had enormous faith in people he worked with. He always said, you know, if we educate our young, they will do more. Yes, there's great injustices, there's lack of progress, but we keep going.
You don't see me giving up. He never gave up. And you know he died very young. He was only seventy one. And you know what the kicker is. My co authored OpEd with him was submitted to the Guardian last week and he passed away on Saturday. And when I had to change our affiliation, his affiliation from is tow was I just broke down. My grief is nothing compared to his families and those who knew him every single day. But I think what gave him hope was the fact that there was those of us who would.
Keep it going.
We would keep it going, we would keep his legacy alive. And my hope is that all the young people he's training that they keep it going and they keep it alive.
Hajjising is head of Global political Strategy at Climate Action Network. He told us about Salim's long quest to put climate adaptation and loss and damage on the negotiating table.
Salim was a lone warrior right from the beginning thirty years ago when he started talking about adaptation and his consistent focus on adaptation and bringing stories from the ground and pushing all countries, both developed and developing countries to have an agreement adaptation is definitely the biggest achievement. And then he joined the fight on loss and damage and look at what we achieved at COP twenty seven last year. So he's not someone who would just talk about an
idea and then leave it. He will pick that up and then he'll make sure that he puts everything behind it to make it real, turning something into a real, tangible outcome.
Emma Howard Boyd is the UK's Commissioner on the Global Commission on Adaptation. She spoke to Salim's generosity and his focus on the global South's vulnerability to climate change.
I think it's more the kindness that I remember he always had time to speak to anybody he felt that was something that he could give, So that's the generous side of Selm. For me, it was that quiet reflection on those parts of the world that have really suffered and been at the forefront of the climate emergency for many, many years, making sure that those of us living in the global North working on this agenda were reminded of the lives and loss of livelihoods that have taken place
all around the world. I remember sitting in a meeting with him as we were starting to hear about the fatality is in Europe and him saying, perhaps now the world will listen because these numbers, sad and tragic as they are, and any life lost to climate change is a life that shouldn't be lost, but really small in comparison to what has been experienced in other parts of the world, and particularly where Sealem was working.
Faranna Yamin is a climate lawyer, activist and a key architect of the Paris Agreement. She told us about the support and encouragement Salim gave to people working on climate issues.
My last conversation with him, and he was totally excited and committed and encouraging of the crazy ideas that I was raising. So that's kind of the measure of the person that he was. He preferred to give you support, encouragement. He may have asked or challenged people to think of alternatives, but he never let know. He tried to embell it and polish and support you in whatever you were doing. And yeah, I'm absolutely gutted that we won't be able
to have more of those conversations. But yeah, he's given his all to the climate movement. And I hope that his family, his children, his son especially and his daughter who survive him and are active in this space too. You know, hear all the praise for him and all understand what a giant of a figure he was.
Nigel Topping is the yuki's high level Climate action Champion. He told us about Salim's influence and came persistent passion.
You know, I came into the champion's role really as a sort of global North mitigation expert, and after three years I left knowing a lot more about the reality of climate issues in the global South and adaptation, residents lost in damage, and a lot of it was down
to Salim. I mean, a lot of people would not know that he wasn't in negotiated right because he worked so closely on the on the issues and he was very focused on some versative issues such grace right combined with passion, I mean, passion off and tips into anger that can get nasty, but I mean, he's one of the classiest individuals working on one of the hardest things that you can imagine. So yeah, I think you know a lot of his influencers by making friends, so by being
a good human being. Right, It's hard not to listen to and have a serious conversation with someone who treats you with decency. And there's a lot of great people work in climate change, but he's a very rare and special person. So he's really sadly missed.
And finally we heard from Rachel Guide, who is the dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University and a former Special representative of the UN Secretary General.
I first met him thirty years ago and at that time I was doing some work on flood action plans in Bangladesh, you know, and he was extraordinarily wise and patient, patient because he saw decades before many others saw what the implications were for adaptation, and so it was like having an adaptation Yoda in the corner of the room always, and at every cop as well, there was Salimo. He could talk in terms that anybody on the street would understand.
He could speak to the detail of negotiated language. He could speak in economic and political terms, and he could speak with moral authority. He was almost the personification of the struggle in the cops for recognition, for adaptation and resilience. I can't think of anybody else who embodied the durability and the resilience of those who've pushed for this from
the get go. But I think in his honor, the T shirt we should all be wearing is lead, follow, or get out of the way, because I think we're at that point now.
Anything else that I should have asked that he would like to share about him?
He had a lovely smile and we will miss him.
Thank you for listening to Zero. To read Sali Mulhak's full obituary, you can find a link in the show notes. If you'd like to get in touch, email us at zero pod at Bloomberg dot net. Zero's producer is Oscarboid and senior producer is Christine driscoll Our. Theme music is composed by Wonderly. A special thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts with us on the life and legacy of salimulhuk i'm Akshatrati back next week.